Nottingham
16 January 1966
Dear Sir,
I wish to make strong complaints against the showing of the programme ‘Till Death Us Do Part’ on B.B.C. Television.
It is a programme which plumbs the deaths [sic] of vulgarity in its references. Since it lacks humour, it is not entertainment but a cheap way of getting the audience’s attention by shocking them.
I teach in a deprived and poor area of Nottingham where the parents lack discrimination in allowing many young children of 6,7,8, 9 and 10 years of age to watch such filth on television. Many of the children use such references as ‘silly old Moo’ and ‘you old cow’ in the classroom. References which they have obviously adopted ‘From Death Us Do Part’[sic]
Do not forget that children are influenced by the programmes they see on television as well as by the teacher in the classroom. The teacher in a deprived area has a continuous battle to uphold morals and standards of decency. While [sic] make our battle more difficult by allowing these indecencies on television, especially at an hour when many children are still watching?
I am sure I speak for many others as well as those in my profession when I ask for this programme to be withdrawn.
Yours truly,
H. B.
Surrey
27 February 1967
Dear Mr. Wheldon,
I have just spent fifteen minutes trying to speak to the Duty Officer regarding the lamentably low standard of ‘Till Death Us Do Part’. I am told that, in order to have a written reply to my complaint, I must ‘write in’. I am writing direct to you, as I don’t ever ‘write in’ to or for anything.
The programme must be expunged from the B.B.C. This evening we have been subjected to a low standard of viewing which centred around a lavatorial humour and which had a strong anti-coloured bias. In England today, when everything is being done to integrate races, your programme has done more, in thirty minutes, to undermine all that has been worked for to achieve this integration in the past years.
Quite apart from this, there are many teenagers who, having finished their evening’s homework, look forward to some entertainment at the end of their day’s work. It is quite impossible to classify this programme as entertainment; and in fact, I contend that it can only be classified as degradation in the extreme.
I shall look forward to your assurance that ‘Till Death Us Do Part’ has been firmly put into the place which it deserves – the dustbin – and that it will not be foist on the public any more.
Yours truly,
P. G. M.A. Oxon.
Headmaster
National Viewers & Listeners Association
21 September 1972
To: Rt.Hon. Lord Hill of Luton, Chairman, The BBC, London W1
Dear Lord Hill,
I felt it only appropriate that I should send to you a copy of the letter written today to Sir John Eden. It does, of course speak for itself. I would only add that to have recourse to such language and ideas serves also to underline the paucity and tawdriness of the programme.
Yours sincerely,
(Mrs.) Mary Whitehouse
National Viewers & Listeners Association
21 September 1972
To: Rt.Hon. Sir John Eden MP., Minister of Posts & Telecommunication
Dear Sir John Eden,
During the course of Wednesday night’s episode of ‘Till Death Us Do Part’ there was a conversation between the characters about the birth of Jesus Christ. The general trend was as follows:
Mary could not have been a virgin as God was the father of her son and the characters wondered how ‘they (up there)’ ‘did it’. Did they ‘do it’ like we do? And why had Mary conceived only one child? Was it because she was ‘on the pill’?
I hope you will agree that such talk was not only obscenely blasphemous, but a calculated offence to a great many viewers.
It is abundantly obvious that the present Governors are unable, or unwilling, to effectively fulfil their role as ‘trustees’ of the public interest and the need for someone capable of dealing with recalcitrant writers and producers becomes ever more urgent.
Yours sincerely,
(Mrs.) Mary Whitehouse
Richmond, Surrey
15 January 1968
To: The Director General, BBC.
Dear Sir,
You may be interested to have the following comments which I have extracted from a letter received from a middle-aged, middle-class friend in Sweden last week. A propos of current events in Britain she writes: ‘I was a bit anxious until I saw Till Death Us Do Part this afternoon. England is a wonderful country to produce such wonderful programmes. We are getting more and more TV programmes from England, and many of them are extremely good and they get very good reviews; many of them have quite hard social criticism.’
I thought last week’s programme of the Garnett family did more to root out false unscientific ideas about blood, race and heredity than any number of earnest biology programmes and though most of the people who voted for the programme in Talkback wouldn’t realise this perhaps the next time they find themselves expressing this sort of belief they may feel uncomfortably like little Alfs and little Elses and stop to think a moment. I am glad the family were their real nasty selves last week. Sometimes, unfortunately we see too much of the lost little man in him (Alf) and this rouses dangerous sympathies which may get attached to his prejudices. Else is always formidably stupid and never, by a flicker, suggests she has any heart or mind. May I suggest that a new series might seriously send-up the not-so-darling dodos from other ranks in society? Unfortunately the approach there nearly always loses its edge.
Yours faithfully,
E. H.
Monmouth
18 January 1968
To: Huw Wheldon, Head of B.B.C. Television, Broadcasting House, LONDON W1
Dear Sir,
On March 28th of last year I wrote to you regarding the programme ‘Till Closing Time Do Us Part’, and expressed the very real concern which I shared with others over the type of material being screened, and I received a very courteous reply from Miss. Kathleen Haacke.
I am very sorry to have to write again, particularly in view of the fact that once more it concerns the same Author and Cast, for the programme which was screened in which the Heart Transplant operations and Blood Donors came in for ridicule, is to say the least in very bad taste, coupled with the bad language which Mr. Speight sees fit to use in his so-called comedy put over by Mr. Garnett & Co.
This sort of material is alien to B.B.C. Television standards, and after watching the programme ‘Talkback’ last Sunday evening, I am compelled to register my protest in view of what was said, and it was a very sad reflection to hear a coloured fellow human being say that the immigrants thought that we had something to offer them in Great Britain, but this was not so after seeing the disgusting behaviour and comments by Garnett at the Blood Donor session.
[W]e here in Wales do not subscribe to this low level of comedy, and I hope that in future programmes that references to the Queen and Royal Family and also to the Prime Minister will be cut out, as this would not be allowed in any other country and personally I do not consider these ‘jibes’ as becoming to our country of which we are very proud to belong.
Yours sincerely,
H.G.L.
Liverpool 13
27 December 1966
To: Director Religious Broadcasting, B.B.C. Television, London W12
Dear Sir,
I wish to draw your attention to a programme broadcast on Channel 1 at 7.0 p.m. on Boxing Day under the title ‘Till Death us do Part’ which must have been offensive to many thousands of Christian people who treat the Christmas Festival with the significance it deserves.
The dialogue was in every sense one of bad taste apart from the continual use of the adjective ‘bloody’ and the vulgar word ‘pollock’ [pillock? bollocks? what is vulgar about a fish or a South African cricketer?] The segment concerning the religious
aspect of Christmas bordered on the blasphemous. The programme moreover was shown at a peak viewing time when a large number of children – as my own daughter – would be viewing.
I appeal to you to take this matter up immediately with the producer concerned so that nothing of this objectionable nature be shewn [sic] again at a time when the B.B.C. ought to be endeavouring to maintain a true sense of values. Is there nothing that can be done to curb this type of producer from being let loose upon a vast audience on Boxing Day? I personally looked for entertainment yesterday evening not a vulgar intrusion into a low-down row between a man and his wife; as you may well realise, I can go to homes in my area every day of the week if I wish to witness such scenes.
I hope to have a favourable reply from you and an assurance from the B.B.C. that such a programme will be entirely banned in the future.
Yours sincerely,
E.R.
Minister
Liverpool 13
13 January 1968
To: Mr. Huw Wheldon, B.B.C. Television Centre, London W.12
Dear Mr. Wheldon,
About twelve months ago we had some correspondence concerning ‘Till Death us do Part’. I protested a particular edition screened on Boxing Day 1966 and I accepted your reply though I found your comments in favour of the programme pretty thin.
I now write you again in the strongest possible terms regarding the same programme shewn [sic] last evening. I have scarcely ever witnessed a programme in such bad taste and the general tone was offensive even to the most hardened. Why must we have to tolerate the obscenities, the vulgarities and the language of Mr. Alf Garnett? In your letter to me last year you used the phrase ‘delight and please’ as the general verdict on the programme. All I can say is that if such a programme delights and pleases then the audience giving such a verdict must be depraved in mind. You remark in your letter, there is a delicate line to be drawn, and I heartily agree, but I would emphasise without personal malice that the responsibility is yours and you failed miserably to exercise that responsibility last evening. Surely your job as an organisation is not pander to the lowest tastes but point to the highest. Those whose taste is in the gutter and the dustbin should not be catered for by a public corporation and I hope something will be done at once to have the whole matter reconsidered.
Kind regards and thank you for your personal reply last time.
Yours sincerely,
(Rev.) E.R.
Hatton Derby
28 March 1967
To: the Director of Television BBC Television Centre London W12
Dear Sir,
On Easter Monday evening I did not realise that the usual 8.50pm news bulletin was scheduled ten minutes later and was accordingly regaled with some ten minutes of ‘Till Closing Time Do us Part’. I must confess that main thought was that the magnificent resources which the B.B.C. undoubtedly has available were being utterly prostituted on such trivial drivel. When one thinks back and remembers such wonderful programmes as The Black & White Minstrel Show and many other really enjoyable shows, and then is faced with the incoherencies of such a production as this, one almost prefers the ‘kitchen sink’ rubbish that is at least driving a point home to those who care to think it over. Was that really the best you could find for a holiday evening?
On the other hand, when its next run comes around, may I add my plea to the many you must surely get, that Going for a Song should be allocated rather more time. Not, please, a change of time, but simply a longer period for our enjoyment of this urbane and civilised conversation piece, which so many of my friends enjoy so much.
Yours faithfully,
(Rev.) D. H. B.
Nottingham
3 November 1965
To: Kenneth Adam, Director of Programmes, BBC Television
Dear Mr Adam,
I have just read in the local paper of the adverse remarks made to you re ‘Steptoe & Son’. I think it one of the best items and certainly much less harmful than many of these murder films. My advice to the ladies who spoilt your meeting is – ‘If you don’t like it, turn it off’.
I do not often ‘look in’ except for nature films and the news but I look forward to the excellent acting and humour of ‘Steptoe’. Long may it go on.
Yours truly,
S. O. (Mrs.)
Greenford Middlesex
4 November 1965
Steptoe & Son etc.
Dear Sir,
I had to write to you after the Local Conference of Women’s Organisations, including the Mothers Union, had criticized Steptoe and Son and other Programmes which appear on Television.
I am in my middle 70s. I started life as a School Teacher, but, through no fault of my own, I had to abandon the career I had anticipated. So I came from the country to live with my aunt and uncle. He told me the best way to find my way around London was to observe people and places wherever I went too. In that way one learns a lot. I think the Mothers Union is too local in its calculations although it does good work.
We here enjoy Steptoe & Son. It is so like real life. I know my husband, an Old Contemptible and ex-Gunner would enjoy it.
We also, my Son and I, enjoy Z Cars as my brother-in-law is a retired Policeman. Also Dock Green [sic] and many other of your programmes.
Those things we do not want to view, we just leave out. It is as easy as that. Please keep up the good work in trying to please most of us.
And to finish with I must thank you for The Great War series. Of course it made some of us older ones cry. But we would not have missed it for anything.
Yours faithfully,
Mrs. E. S.
CHAPTER FIVE
DRAMA
The same social events which influenced the start of groundbreaking comedy also created the atmosphere in which innovative drama flourished at the BBC. In the late 1950s all departments of the BBC seemed to be transfixed by the glare of the ITV headlights. The commercial network not only transmitted high-ratings American imports like 77 Sunset Strip and Dragnet but outflanked the BBC by originating domestic dramas like the strand of plays which were screened under the umbrella title of Armchair Theatre, and of course Coronation Street which Granada started transmitting in 1960.
Armchair Theatre had been running for two years when the Canadian Sydney Newman arrived in 1958 to supervise it. As a North American, he had not been raised with the reverence for the legitimate theatre which effectively had been the case with most BBC drama producers and directors. As a consequence, he was much more anxious to seek work from living playwrights like Harold Pinter, Clive Exton and Alun Owen, whose first television plays were transmitted by ABC, having been commissioned by Newman. The influence of John Osborne, Arnold Wesker and the so-called Angry Young Men in the theatre and commercial successes in the cinema like Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, Room at the Top and A Kind of Loving, which drew their inspiration from contemporary events, had left the BBC drama department hopelessly fossilised.
The BBC responded to its isolation by poaching Newman from ABC and encouraging him to open the BBC to new influences. Under his aegis, the BBC developed Z Cars, which included among its writers Troy Kennedy Martin, Alan Plater, John Hopkins and Allan Prior. All used their learning experience on Z Cars to progress to significant careers. Plater went on to write The Beiderbecke Trilogy, Troy Kennedy Martin wrote Edge of Darkness and Hopkins graduated from Z Cars to write the award-winning quartet of plays, Talking to a Stranger, before moving into films and life in California.
Newman expanded the personnel and reach of the drama department, sidelining the old hands of BBC Drama who preferred another stab at Rattigan or Chekov to anything more challenging, and encouraging young people who wanted to make his sort of contemporary drama. He despised the BBC’s taste for plays about the upper classes who, he pointed out rather acidly, didn’t watch television, probably didn’t own television sets and whose activities would not exactly resonate with the working class and the people who formed the basis of the general te
levision audience. Under Newman the BBC produced plays, series and serials that responded to the seismic changes in British society in the 1960s.
The Wednesday Play tended to be where Newman took the most chances and which created the most controversy. Occasionally Newman’s creative boldness met with resistance higher up the BBC chain of command. In 1965, Peter Watkins wrote, produced and directed The War Game, a film depicting the aftermath of a Soviet nuclear attack. It was around the time that Hollywood produced both Fail Safe and Dr. Strangelove, which essentially dealt with the same nightmare scenario and were critically acclaimed, but it frightened the life out of both the BBC and the government and was not screened for twenty years.
Under Newman, BBC Drama showed itself willing to tackle almost any subject but its new brashness inevitably produced howls of outrage from those who now regularly objected to anything new on the BBC. Cathy Come Home showed to an ignorant public the terrible social effects of homelessness; Up the Junction was an unflinchingly honest depiction of a backstreet abortion and working-class life in Clapham in general; Culloden was praised by the critics for its realism and loathed by its opponents for its depiction of the brutality of battle.
By the middle of the decade it was becoming possible to predict with unerring accuracy which subjects would attract the greatest hostility. Anything that involved religion or sex was bound to provoke complaints. Interestingly enough, there are almost no letters at all complaining about Cathy Come Home. Perhaps the sheer horror of it, especially the ending when the two children are dragged away from their mother by unfeeling social workers, stunned the nation into a shamefaced acceptance that the play merely dramatised what had been staring the country in the face for years but which had been studiously ignored.
In a sense, Garnett and Loach’s film was the perfect example of what drama could do and, for all its perceived shocking innovation, it simply held a mirror up to nature and showed society its own image – as it had been doing for four hundred years. The complainants thought otherwise, of course, and did not wish those images to pour uninvited into their living rooms. Fortunately, all they could do was to write the letters, not of all of which were condemnatory.
I'm Sure I Speak For Many Others... Page 6
